Re: Chris, Chris, Chris . . ., the first place to look for a dive instructor

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Chris on June 26, 2003 at 11:32:03:

In Reply to: Chris, Chris, Chris . . . posted by Ken Kurtis on June 26, 2003 at 00:04:47:

The statement in section D "automatically an additionally insured" means that anyone named in that section does not need to be named. Section C only applies to any one not included in D or anyone who the insured (you or me for example) choose to name as additionally insured. It does not hurt to name them, but this should not be necessary.

You and I both know that you are omitting a big part of the story here. The problem is that St. Paul, NAUIs present carrier is refusing to pay because they say the boat is not covered. However the policy specifically states that boat owners are covered, thus their argument that he is not covered because the boat was sued holds no water. It seems odd that you choose to defend NAUI on this. Why is it NAUI has said nothing publicly about this obvious lapse of coverage and gross breach of contract by their present insurer. It is the silence of NAUI in this matter that especially has me concerned. What good are their negotiating contractual terms with an insurer when they do nothing to ensure these terms are adhered to. This lack of effort to enforce contractual terms by NAUI is why I have fundamental problems with even a new insurer.

... Chris

p.s. I apologize for the MHK like baiting, it could have been phrased better

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]